Where to start with Hegel?

Where to start with Hegel?

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit
archive.org/details/W.T.StaceThePhilosophyOfHegelDoverPress1955
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I believe the Greeks are always a good place to start.

Lectures on the Philosophy of History

Assume I've read those, where to start with his core body of work?

>start
>with
>Hegel

Fuck off Schopi, getting through Will and Representation was a fucking chore.

You really should have read Kant more carefully.

>Implying it wasn't a pleasure
>Implying Schopenhauer didn't have the best criticisms (and corrections) of Kant's philosophy

Face it, kid. The only thing Hegel's philosophy is good for is the apotheosis of the state.

Either the Science of Logic. which examines his method of logic, or the Phenomenology of the Spirit, which is an argument for the premise the underlies all his other works.

Starting anywhere else is going to show you Hegel's ideas, but if you accept them, it won't be as a philosopher, it will just be as someone accept something because Hegel said it.

> In 1820, Schopenhauer became a lecturer at the University of Berlin. He scheduled his lectures to coincide with those of the famous philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, whom Schopenhauer described as a "clumsy charlatan."[28] However, only five students turned up to Schopenhauer's lectures, and he dropped out of academia. A late essay, On University Philosophy, expressed his resentment towards the work conducted in academies.

Schop hated Hegel, because Hegel was, much to Schop's offense, not concerned with rational proofs. Hegel was rather concerned with the underlying mechanics of how consciousness arrived at conclusions, and saw rational proofs as superimposed on this process after the fact.

The stuff he agreed on with Kant was stuff he misrepresented. His criticism wouldn't be that bad in a vacuum, but coupled with his clear misunderstandings of what the stuff he didn't disagree with supposedly meant it became painfully obvious that he had no idea what he was doing.

I would start with the short, accessible text 'Wer denkt Abstrakt?' and his lectures on the philosophy of history - or perhaps the philosophy of right?

It would make more sense to dip your toes in the shallows than tackle the Phenomenologie des Geistes head on.

If you don't read Phenomenology, then you taking Hegel's fundamental premise in works like Right based purely on faith, not on philosophical proof.

Examples?

>Phenomenologie
at least bother enough to pretend that you know germans

And because Schopenhauer had his lecture at the same time and nearly everyone went into Hegels.

The Veeky Forums philosophy project is a solid reference guide for reading most philosophers: docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit
If you're too lazy to read it, it says recommends you understand the german idealist who came before Hegel; Kant, Schelling and Fichte. Then to begin with: Early Theological Writings (Works in Continental Philosophy) ISBN: 0812210220
Hegel Faith and Knowledge ISBN: 088706826X
The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy ISBN: 0887068278
Lectures on Logic ISBN: 0253351677

It's not a chore wtf is wrong with you.

Books 3 and 4 were SUBLIME

Also begin with Hegel's Lecture's on History:

Philosophy of history
The Philosophy of History (Dover Philosophical Classics) ISBN: 0486437558
Lectures on the Philosophy of World History (Cambridge Studies in the History and Theory of Politics ISBN: 0521281458

>proof

Everyone itt is trolling. Just know that Marx was Hegels heir. So, if you are a lefty Hegel is God. If you are a righty, he is Satan. If you're a lefty post his one picture and make Baugh allusions to Hegels superiority. If you're a righty post Nietzsche and make some similarly vague allegation.

Do this, and you are a Veeky Forums philosopher.

archive.org/details/W.T.StaceThePhilosophyOfHegelDoverPress1955

This is a really good overview of Hegels thougth

holy shit are you retarded

If you think you can get an 'overview' of any philosopher's thought, then, you don't actually know Hegel's thought.

or don't agree with it, as the case may be

The trash.

Spotted a major problem within about a minute:
>Maybe Timaeus as well, which alludes to the Republic. Other than that, the rest are great from a certain philosophic perspective, but maybe not so essential to someone who'd just like familiarity.
Timaeus is at least as important as the Republic. It was in Western Europe the ONLY extent Plato dialogue up until the Renaissance, and Platonism really refers to the idea of forms in Timaeus up until the enlightenment. And the organicist idea of forms continually resurfaced through Schopenhauer and even the analytics with Whitehead.

I'm sure the rest of the archived post in there has some worth but it's just not academic and contains serious bullshit. I'm pretty sure it's like an amalgam of other posts since parts look like they were written by me, but most of it I for sure wouldn't have written.

Who uses Schop as a foundation these days.

I would say nobody. As in, 0 people.

Undialectical dumbass